[GOAL] Re: Monographs

[l.hurtado at ed.ac.uk]

Contra Prosser, it IS strictly true in the UK that the *Gold* option  
involves author-pays.  The RCUK allows the "Green" approach *for the  
present time*, but with intonations that they'd really like everything  
to go Gold.  I've read the consultation document.
Larry Hurtado


Quoting David Prosser <david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk> on Fri, 29 Nov 2013  
20:29:14 +0000:

> Larry Hurtado wrote:
>
>> --The "gold" approach here in the UK = author-pay, whatever it may
>> mean elsewhere.
>
>
> This is not strictly true.  RCUK have given funds to pay APC  
> charges, but they do not require that publication is in an  
> APC-charging journal.  An author meets the RCUK conditions by either  
> publishing in an open access journal - irrespective of its business  
> model - or through green deposit.
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 29 Nov 2013, at 17:06, l.hurtado at ed.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> A few responses to Guedon's comments:
>> --The "gold" approach here in the UK = author-pay, whatever it may
>> mean elsewhere.
>> --If many journals offer "free" services to authors, that's because
>> they have an income-stream to pay the people who provide the services,
>> whether by some form of subsidy (and I don't know of many in my field)
>> or by subscription fees.  For these services to be provided will
>> either require these income sources or the author-pay model.
>> --We can extrapolate roughly what this would cost authors:  It would
>> be at least multiple(s) of the single-article charge being levied
>> already by, e.g., OUP and Brill for "gold" option article publication
>> (in each case £2000 or more for articles of ca. 20 pp. printed).
>> --I fail to see how any sort of mandate would be of any comfort and
>> assistance to authors, whether first-time or established.  I repeat:
>> Surely a fundamental rule should be that any convention should have
>> the confidence and support of the constituency affected.  The
>> alternative is tyranny.
>>
>> Larry Hurtado
>>
>>
>> Quoting Guédon Jean-Claude <jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca> on Fri,
>> 29 Nov 2013 10:24:32 +0000:
>>
>>> There a number of points to be made regarding Hurtado's message:
>>>
>>> 1. The "horrid 'Gold'" must refer to the author-pay gold. This is
>>> not the whole of gold, only a subset. Gold ciovers a wide variety of
>>> financing schemes.
>>>
>>> 2. The figures given for "horrid gold" - incidentally, I like this
>>> term applied to author-pay business models - are real, but not
>>> general. Thousands of journals offer gratis services to authors and
>>> free use by readers because, simply, they are subsidized in one
>>> fashion or another.
>>>
>>> 3. Even if the cost of £2000+ (Sterling) were accepted for articles,
>>> the cost of monographs could not be derived from a simplistic linear
>>> extrapolation based on page numbers.
>>>
>>> 4. Young scholars who may not enjoy Hurtado's stature in the world,
>>> would be delighted to have their first work published, if only
>>> electronically. Moreover, they would probably prefer open access to
>>> ensure maximum visibility and use, provided the evaluation process
>>> in force within their universities does not treat electronic
>>> publishing as inferior.
>>>
>>> 5. In many countries, e.g. in Canada, subsidies exist to support the
>>> publishing of monographs. This precedent opens the door to possible
>>> extensions to full OA-publishing support, for example for a young
>>> scholar's first book.
>>>
>>> Jean-Claude Guédon
>>> ________________________________________
>>> De : goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] de la part
>>> de l.hurtado at ed.ac.uk [l.hurtado at ed.ac.uk]
>>> Envoyé : jeudi 28 novembre 2013 05:40
>>> À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>>> Objet : [GOAL] Re: Monographs
>>>
>>> Further to Steven's comment, as a scholar in the Humanities, in which
>>> the book/monograph is still THE major medium for high-impact
>>> research-publication, mandating a major change such as OA (even
>>> "Green", to say nothing of the horrid "Gold"), would be opposed by at
>>> least the overwhelming majority (and perhaps even unanimously) in the
>>> disciplines concerned.  And the reasons aren't primarily author-income
>>> that might accrue from traditional print-book publication.  For many
>>> European-type small-print-run monographs, sold almost entirely to
>>> libraries, often no royalty accrues to author. Even serious books
>>> intended primarily for other scholars in the field and published by
>>> university presses and/or reputable trade publishers, the royalties
>>> will still be modest in comparison with, e.g., popular fiction works.
>>>
>>> My best-selling book, sold ca. 5,000 hardback and has sold now over
>>> another 3000 in paperback.  Several thousand in royalties, but,
>>> seriously, my main aim in writing books has been to get them into the
>>> hands of as many fellow scholars in my field as possible, and also
>>> then into the hands of advanced students and other serious readers.
>>> I've typically gone with a highly-respected and well-established
>>> "trade" publisher, mainly because they combine excellent editing,
>>> marketing, and a readiness to price the books affordably (e.g., a 700
>>> page hardback at $55 USD, because they committed to a 5000 copy
>>> initial print-run.)
>>>
>>> For an equivalent service to be provided, someone has to pay.  "Gold"
>>> access articles are costing now £2000+ (Sterling) each, with
>>> page-lengths of ca. 20 print pages.  Imagine what an author would have
>>> to pay for a 150-200 page monograph.  And don't tell me that
>>> everything will be OK, because university libraries will hand over
>>> their acquisitions budget for this.  It won't happen.  Moreover, what
>>> about "independent" and retired scholars, who continue to produce
>>> important works?
>>>
>>> And the "Green" approach means no one pays, and so no service
>>> (editing, and other production services, including promotion) will be
>>> done free?  Think again.
>>>
>>> But the fundamental thing is this:  Any "mandate" that does not have
>>> the enthusiasm of the constituency is tyranny.  And neither "Green"
>>> nor "Gold" access has any enthusiasm among Humanities scholars as may
>>> be applied to books/monographs.
>>>
>>> Larry Hurtado
>>>
>>> Quoting Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> on Mon, 25 Nov 2013
>>> 17:09:56 -0500:
>>>
>>>> Sandy, I'm all for OA to monographs, of course.
>>>>
>>>> It's *mandating* OA to monographs that I am very skeptical about, because
>>>> there is unanimity among researchers about desiring -- even if not daring,
>>>> except if mandated, to provide -- OA to peer-reviewed journal articles,
>>>> whereas there is no such unanimity about monographs.
>>>>
>>>> Not to mention that prestige publishers may not yet be ready to  
>>>> agree to it.
>>>>
>>>> So mandate Green OA to articles first; that done, mandate (or try to
>>>> mandate) whatever else you like. But not before, or instead.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, where the author and publisher are willing, there is  
>>>> absolute no
>>>> obstacle to providing OA to monographs today, unmandated.
>>>>
>>>> Stevan Harnad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Sandy Thatcher <sgt3 at psu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stevan continues to be hung up on the idea that some academic authors
>>>>> still have visions of fame and fortune they'd like to achieve through
>>>>> publishing books in the traditional manner, so he believes that the time
>>>>> for OA in book publishing has not yet arrived. But perhaps a simple
>>>>> terminological distinction may suffice to place this problem in proper
>>>>> perspective.  Academic books may be divided into two types:  
>>>>> monographs and
>>>>> trade books. Monographs, by definition, are works of scholarship written
>>>>> primarily to address other scholars and are therefore unlikely to attract
>>>>> many, if any, readers beyond the walls of academe. Trade books  
>>>>> encompass a
>>>>> large category that includes, as one subset, nonfiction works written by
>>>>> scholars but addressed not only to fellow scholars but also to members of
>>>>> the general public.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is an easy practical way to distinguish the two: commercial trade
>>>>> publishers (as distinct from commercial scholarly publishers that do not
>>>>> aim at a trade market) have certain requirements for potential sales that
>>>>> guarantee that monographs will never be accepted for publication.  It is
>>>>> true that the authors of monographs, published by university presses and
>>>>> commercial scholarly publishers, are sometimes paid royalties. But these
>>>>> amounts seldom accumulate to large sums (unless the monographs happen to
>>>>> become widely adopted in classrooms as course assignments--a phenomenon
>>>>> that happens less these days when coursepacks and e-reserves  
>>>>> permit use of
>>>>> excerpts for classroom assignments).  Thus not much is sacrificed,
>>>>> financially speaking, by publishing these books OA. And, indeed,  
>>>>> a scholar
>>>>> may have more to gain, in terms of increased reputation from wider
>>>>> circulation that may translate into tenure and promotion, which  
>>>>> are vastly
>>>>> more financially rewarding over the long term than royalties are ever
>>>>> likely to be from monograph sales.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, of course, financial opportunities do not need to be sacrificed
>>>>> completely by OA if the CC-BY-NC-ND license is used for monographs,
>>>>> preserving some money-generating rights to authors even under OA.
>>>>>
>>>>> It also needs to be said that even trade authors can benefit from OA, as
>>>>> the successes of such authors as Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, Jonathan
>>>>> Zittrain, and others have demonstrated, with the free online versions of
>>>>> their books serving to stimulate print sales.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus I believe Stevan is not being quite pragmatic enough in recognizing
>>>>> that the time has arrived for OA monograph publishing also, not just OA
>>>>> article publishing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandy Thatcher
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At 12:44 PM -0500 11/19/13, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann Okerson (as
>>>>> interviewed<http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ann-okerson-on-state-of-open-access.html>by Richard Poynder) is committed to licensing. I am not  
>>>>> sure
>>>>> whether
>>>>> the
>>>>> commitment is ideological or pragmatic, but it's clearly a lifelong
>>>>> ("asymptotic") commitment by now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was surprised to see the direction Ann ultimately took because -- as I
>>>>> have admitted many times -- it was Ann who first opened my eyes to (what
>>>>> eventually came to be called) "Open Access."
>>>>>
>>>>> In the mid and late 80's I was still just in the thrall of the scholarly
>>>>> and scientific potential of the revolutionarily new online medium
>>>>> itself ("Scholarly
>>>>> Skywriting"<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/sky-writing-or-when-man-first-met-troll/239420/>),
>>>>> eager to get everything to be put online. It was Ann's work on  
>>>>> the serials
>>>>> crisis that made me realize that it was not enough just to get it all
>>>>> online: it also had to be made accessible (online) to all of its  
>>>>> potential
>>>>> users, toll-free -- not just to those whose institutions could afford the
>>>>> access-tolls (licenses).
>>>>>
>>>>> And even that much I came to understand, sluggishly, only after I had
>>>>> first realized that what set apart the writings in question was not that
>>>>> they were (as I had first naively dubbed them)
>>>>> "esoteric<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Proposal>"
>>>>> (i.e., they had few users) but that they were* peer-reviewed research
>>>>> journal articles*, written by researchers solely for impact, not for
>>>>> income <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But I don't think the differences between Ann and me can be set down to
>>>>> ideology vs. pragmatics. I too am far too often busy trying to free the
>>>>> growth of open access from the ideologues (publishing reformers, rights
>>>>> reformers (Ann's "open use" zealots), peer review reformers, freedom of
>>>>> information reformers) who are slowing the progress of access to
>>>>> peer-reviewed journal articles (from "now" to "better") by insisting only
>>>>> and immediately on what they believe is the "best." Like Ann, I, too, am
>>>>> all pragmatics (repository software, analyses of the OA impact advantage,
>>>>> mandates, analyses of mandate effeciveness).
>>>>>
>>>>> So Ann just seems to have a different sense of what can (hence should) be
>>>>> done, now, to maximize access, and how (as well as how fast).  
>>>>> And after her
>>>>> initial, infectious inclination toward toll-free access (which I  
>>>>> and others
>>>>> caught from her) she has apparently concluded that what is needed is to
>>>>> modify the terms of the tolls (i.e., licensing).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is well-illustrated by Ann's view on SCOAP3: "All it takes is for
>>>>> libraries to agree that what they've now paid as subscription fees for
>>>>> those journals will be paid instead to CERN, who will in turn pay to the
>>>>> publishers as subsidy for APCs."
>>>>>
>>>>> I must alas disagree with this view, on entirely pragmatic -- indeed
>>>>> logical -- grounds: the transition from annual institutional subscription
>>>>> fees to annual consortial OA publication fees is an incoherent,  
>>>>> unscalable,
>>>>> unsustainable Escherian scheme that contains the seeds of its own
>>>>> dissolution, rather than a pragmatic means of reaching a stable
>>>>> "asymptote": Worldwide, across all disciplines, there are P  
>>>>> institutions, Q
>>>>> journals, and R authors, publishing S articles per year. The  
>>>>> only relevant
>>>>> item is the article. The annual consortial licensing model -- reminiscent
>>>>> of the Big Deal -- is tantamount to a global oligopoly and does not scale
>>>>> (beyond CERN!).
>>>>>
>>>>> So if SCOAP3 is the pragmatic basis for Ann's "predict[ion that]  
>>>>> we'll see
>>>>> such journals evolve into something more like 'full traditional  
>>>>> OA' before
>>>>> too much longer" then one has some practical basis for scepticism -- a
>>>>> scepticism Ann shares when it comes to "hybrid Gold" OA journals  
>>>>> -- unless
>>>>> of course such a transition to Fool's Gold is both mandated and funded by
>>>>> governments, as the UK and Netherlands governments have lately
>>>>> proposed<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1073-The-Journal-Publisher-Lobby-in-the-UK-Netherlands-Part-I.html>,
>>>>> under the influence of their publishing lobbies! But the globalization of
>>>>> such profligate folly seems unlikely on the most pragmatic  
>>>>> grounds of all:
>>>>> affordability. (The scope for remedying world hunger, disease or  
>>>>> injustice
>>>>> that way are marginally better -- and McDonalds would no doubt be
>>>>> interested in such a yearly global consortial pre-payment
>>>>> deal<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=oI6LUpG8LPLCyAHT5IHQDg#q=McNopoly+harnad>for their  
>>>>> Big
>>>>> Macs
>>>>> too?)
>>>>>
>>>>> I also disagree (pragmatically) with Ann's apparent conflation of the
>>>>> access problem for journal articles with the access problem for books.
>>>>> (It's the inadequacy of the "esoteric" criterion again. Many book authors
>>>>> -- hardly pragmatists -- still dream of sales & riches, and fear  
>>>>> that free
>>>>> online access would thwart these dreams, driving away the prestigious
>>>>> publishers whose imprimaturs distinguish their work from vanity press.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Pragmatically speaking, OA to articles has already proved slow enough in
>>>>> coming, and has turned out to require mandates to induce and embolden
>>>>> authors to make their articles OA. But for articles, at least, there is
>>>>> author consensus that OA is desirable, hence there is the motivation to
>>>>> comply with OA mandates from authors' institutions and funders. Books,
>>>>> still a mixed bag, will have to wait. Meanwhile, no one is stopping those
>>>>> book authors who want to make their books free online from picking
>>>>> publishers who agree?>
>>>>>
>>>>> And there are plenty of pragmatic reasons why the librarian-obsession --
>>>>> perhaps not ideological, but something along the same lines -- with the
>>>>> Version-of-Record is misplaced when it comes to access to  
>>>>> journal articles:
>>>>> The author's final, peer-reviewed, accepted draft means the difference
>>>>> between night and day for would-be users whose institutions cannot afford
>>>>> toll-access to the publisher's proprietary VoR.
>>>>>
>>>>> And for the time being the toll-access VoR is safe [modulo the general
>>>>> digital-preservation problem, which is not an OA problem], while
>>>>> subscription licenses are being paid by those who can afford them. CHORUS
>>>>> and SHARE have plenty of pragmatic advantages for publishers (and
>>>>> ideological ones for librarians), but they are vastly outweighed by their
>>>>> practical disadvantages for research and researchers -- of which the
>>>>> biggest is that they leave access-provision in the hands of  
>>>>> publishers (and
>>>>> their licensing conditions).
>>>>>
>>>>> About the Marie-Antoinette option for the developing world -- R4L -- the
>>>>> less said, the better. The pragmatics really boil down to time:  
>>>>> the access
>>>>> needs of both the developing and the developed world are  
>>>>> pressing. Partial
>>>>> and makeshift solutions are better than nothing, now. But it's been "now"
>>>>> for an awfully long time; and time is not an ideological but a pragmatic
>>>>> matter; so is lost research usage and impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ann says: "Here's the fondest hope of the pragmatic OA advocate: that we
>>>>> settle on a series of business practices that truly make the greatest
>>>>> possible collection of high-value material accessible to the broadest
>>>>> possible audience at the lowest possible cost - not just lowest  
>>>>> cost to end
>>>>> users, but lowest cost to all of us."
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's a slight variant, by another pragmatic OA advocate: "that  
>>>>> we settle
>>>>> on a series of research community policies that truly make the greatest
>>>>> possible collection of peer-reviewed journal articles accessible online
>>>>> free for all users, to the practical benefit of all of us."
>>>>>
>>>>> The online medium has made this practically possible. The publishing
>>>>> industry -- pragmatists rather than ideologists -- will adapt to this new
>>>>> practical reality. Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me close by suggesting that perhaps something Richard  
>>>>> Poynder wrote is
>>>>> not quite correct either: He wrote "It was [the] affordability  
>>>>> problem that
>>>>> created the accessibility problem that OA was intended to solve."
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it was the creation of the online medium that made OA not only
>>>>> practically feasible (and optimal) for research and researchers, but
>>>>> inevitable.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Stevan Harnad*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Sanford G. Thatcher
>>>>> 8201 Edgewater Drive
>>>>> Frisco, TX  75034-5514
>>>>> e-mail: sgt3 at psu.edu
>>>>> Phone: (214) 705-1939
>>>>> Website: http://www.psupress.org/news/SandyThatchersWritings.html
>>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher
>>>>>
>>>>> "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865)
>>>>>
>>>>> "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who
>>>>> can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> GOAL mailing list
>>>>> GOAL at eprints.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE
>>> Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology
>>> Honorary Professorial Fellow
>>> New College (School of Divinity)
>>> University of Edinburgh
>>> Mound Place
>>> Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX
>>> Office Phone:  (0)131 650 8920. FAX:  (0)131 650 7952
>>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado
>>> www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GOAL mailing list
>>> GOAL at eprints.org
>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GOAL mailing list
>>> GOAL at eprints.org
>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE
>> Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology
>> Honorary Professorial Fellow
>> New College (School of Divinity)
>> University of Edinburgh
>> Mound Place
>> Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX
>> Office Phone:  (0)131 650 8920. FAX:  (0)131 650 7952
>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado
>> www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com
>>
>> --
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>



L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE
Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology
Honorary Professorial Fellow
New College (School of Divinity)
University of Edinburgh
Mound Place
Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX
Office Phone:  (0)131 650 8920. FAX:  (0)131 650 7952
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado
www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.